Lovett lodges notice of grievance with club

[matrix]

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/l ... -q9pk.html

ANDREW Lovett's lawyers are expected to lodge an updated notice of grievance today to recommence the settlement process between St Kilda and the sacked footballer

Lovett's notice of grievance was still being amended yesterday in response to a statement St Kilda issued at the end of the unsuccessful mediation. The Saints stipulated in the statement - for the first time publicly - that Lovett had been sacked because he had brought the club into disrepute by being accused of, and ultimately charged with, rape. Earlier, the club had cited other disciplinary issues as reasons for his dismissal.

[stinger]

"The matter of Lovett's handling by a football club he did not play a single game for will now be heard by an AFL grievance tribunal.'



flowering expensive mistake....

[rodgerfox]

Why was Ross Lyon at the original hearing last week?

Wasn't that designed to broker a deal between the club, Lovett, and the AFLPA?

Why would the coach be present at that point?

[oneteam]

Lyon was not there .

No reason for him to be there.

[rodgerfox]

Lyon was not there .

No reason for him to be there.

I thought I read that he was.


I must admit it had me scratching my head cause I couldn't see why the coach would be present at a meeting of that sort.

[ozrulestrace]

Lyon was not there .

No reason for him to be there.

I thought I read that he was.


I must admit it had me scratching my head cause I couldn't see why the coach would be present at a meeting of that sort.

I'm sorry Ross wasn't there, because I wanted to see Lovett sitting directly opposite him and Ross asking him to look him the face and say he (Lovett) desrves any kind of payment after what has happened i.e never played a game for this club so how can you ask for such an outrageous amount of money.

[mbogo]

Well how about asking him whether he thinks that any of his actions may have brought the club into disrepute.

[barks4eva]

Why was Ross Lyon at the original hearing last week?

Wasn't that designed to broker a deal between the club, Lovett, and the AFLPA?

Why would the coach be present at that point?

Well if Ross Lyon wasn't there then he showed impeccable judgement in not being there, but if he was there, this displayed a great deal of cognitive awareness and insight in knowing he needed to be there!

Whatever the case might be, he revealed great intuitive reasoning and perspicuous understanding of the necessary dynamics, borne from an acute, analytical and perspicaciously, hypothesized deciphering and dissemination of the relevant information at hand, to arrive ultimately at the correct decision!










Ross Lyon walks on water!

[saint66au]

Lyon was not there .

No reason for him to be there.

I thought I read that he was.


I must admit it had me scratching my head cause I couldn't see why the coach would be present at a meeting of that sort.

Just to annoy you Rodger, just to annoy you

[saintnick12]

Latest update on the saga...

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/s ... -qmcf.html

Must admit I don't like the way the club is not respecting the previously agreed upon disbute resolution procedures, but I've said my piece about that previously. Hopefully this is all just manouvering to try to get a settlement....

[GrumpyOne]

Latest update on the saga...

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/s ... -qmcf.html

Must admit I don't like the way the club is not respecting the previously agreed upon disbute resolution procedures, but I've said my piece about that previously. Hopefully this is all just manouvering to try to get a settlement....

Two wrongs don't make a right.

[Moccha]

About time they put this to bed. I really can't see this going on for too much longer

[BallBanger]

Lovett would have been given some leeway by our club because of us using 1 draft pick so to give him the flick would not have been an easy thing for the club...
That prick lawyer/umpire Humphry smith can't see past his own selfish nose...ever heard him explain why or why not a free was given only to reverse argue the folllowing week.

HS/AL are trying as many angles as they can to get something they do not want to see why they should not have...
If lovett goes to the grievience commission and wins (like the afl HAVE CARED ABOUT saints in the past) where does this leave us??? do we have to add the 3 mil the GR.TR. sanctioned to him (hypethetical) on our salary cap?
Then later when he is (hypethetical again) found guilty of rape what happens?????

Then if we go to the G.T. and tell all is this influencing the course of justice..surely this info should be confidential

[saintspremiers]

Lovett would have been given some leeway by our club because of us using 1 draft pick so to give him the flick would not have been an easy thing for the club...
That prick lawyer/umpire Humphry smith can't see past his own selfish nose...ever heard him explain why or why not a free was given only to reverse argue the folllowing week.

HS/AL are trying as many angles as they can to get something they do not want to see why they should not have...
If lovett goes to the grievience commission and wins (like the afl HAVE CARED ABOUT saints in the past) where does this leave us??? do we have to add the 3 mil the GR.TR. sanctioned to him (hypethetical) on our salary cap?
Then later when he is (hypethetical again) found guilty of rape what happens?????

Then if we go to the G.T. and tell all is this influencing the course of justice..surely this info should be confidential

well said.

I hope we nail Humphrey Bear and the leech he is representing.

Fight it Saints!

[GrumpyOne]

The question is should Lovett be covered by the same sort of employment laws we are covered by, or is it different because his job is playing footy?

The Saints are only in this position because the leadership group gave them an ultimatum, and with the best team ever to put on the jumper, premierships were at stake. Footy success was put higher than moral correctness.

If we had finished on the bottom of the ladder, the whole matter would have been done and dusted by now.

[saint66au]

Pretty obvious whats happening IMO

Saints want to give him nothing

AL wants his full 3 year salary + masses of compensation for wrongdoing

The end result will be somewhere in the middle and I think all parties know this

[Mr Magic]

The question is should Lovett be covered by the same sort of employment laws we are covered by, or is it different because his job is playing footy?

The Saints are only in this position because the leadership group gave them an ultimatum, and with the best team ever to put on the jumper, premierships were at stake. Footy success was put higher than moral correctness.

If we had finished on the bottom of the ladder, the whole matter would have been done and dusted by now.

Grumps, you're like 'a dog with a bone' on this.
What is concerning is that you've obviously heard 'something' which you are now stating as fact.

How do you know that St Kilda's actions are due only to an 'ultimatum' from the leadership group' (at least you've now widened the 'culprits' from the captain to the leadership group).

What makes you so sure that the reasons St Kilda gave for terminating his contract were false?

Why do you appear to have a fixation with the rights of Andrew Lovett to the complete detriment of everybody else at St Kilda?

According to the Club, Lovett breached clauses of his contract, so they sacked him. Why is that so impossible for you to believe?

Why are you so much more concerned about Andrew Lovett than other Saints players who may well have been affected by his actions?

What am I missing here?
Why aren't the reasons for your position obvious to me?

[maverick]

The question is should Lovett be covered by the same sort of employment laws we are covered by, or is it different because his job is playing footy?

The Saints are only in this position because the leadership group gave them an ultimatum, and with the best team ever to put on the jumper, premierships were at stake. Footy success was put higher than moral correctness.

If we had finished on the bottom of the ladder, the whole matter would have been done and dusted by now.

BS, the sooner footballers realise that part of their salary is linked to the way they act off the field the better they will be.

AL deserves nothing, and he brought it all on himself.

[Saintsfan]

Andrew Lovett's psychological well-being needs to be addressed as well. He has stated he battles depression and the illness does not magically go away. It is a misunderstood illness that the naive bogan seems to put down to not being cheery and happy.

I believe his psych state should be considered with the assistance of a third party psychological analyst.

[ausfatcat]

I believe his psych state should be considered with the assistance of a third party psychological analyst.

Is that the saints, AFL's, Lovetts management or Lovetts rsponsibility thou?

[Saintsfan]

I believe his psych state should be considered with the assistance of a third party psychological analyst.

Is that the saints, AFL's, Lovetts management or Lovetts rsponsibility thou?

If he is still somehow considered an employee within the scope of the AFL well then us plus everyone.

Well actually everyone. Either way we are well...trailblazing the way for further players to be sacked by proving that appropriate rules are not in place to deal with such a problem

[Bernard Shakey]

I believe his psych state should be considered with the assistance of a third party psychological analyst.

Is that the saints, AFL's, Lovetts management or Lovetts rsponsibility thou?

Please do not keep using the word thou, which means you,
when you mean though, which generally means however.

[GrumpyOne]

The question is should Lovett be covered by the same sort of employment laws we are covered by, or is it different because his job is playing footy?

The Saints are only in this position because the leadership group gave them an ultimatum, and with the best team ever to put on the jumper, premierships were at stake. Footy success was put higher than moral correctness.

If we had finished on the bottom of the ladder, the whole matter would have been done and dusted by now.

Grumps, you're like 'a dog with a bone' on this.
What is concerning is that you've obviously heard 'something' which you are now stating as fact.

How do you know that St Kilda's actions are due only to an 'ultimatum' from the leadership group' (at least you've now widened the 'culprits' from the captain to the leadership group).

What makes you so sure that the reasons St Kilda gave for terminating his contract were false?

Why do you appear to have a fixation with the rights of Andrew Lovett to the complete detriment of everybody else at St Kilda?

According to the Club, Lovett breached clauses of his contract, so they sacked him. Why is that so impossible for you to believe?

Why are you so much more concerned about Andrew Lovett than other Saints players who may well have been affected by his actions?

What am I missing here?
Why aren't the reasons for your position obvious to me?

All will out in time MM.

I was wrong to accuse the captain. I was only focussing on one person with the power to issue an ultimatum to the club. A group of the club leaders on the field have the equivalent power to the franchise player.

What I have found out is that the club was in a no-win situation, and took the course of action they did to salvage the season. If you need evidence, look at the "no it wasn't/yes it was" stance on the alledged rape being the reason for Lovett's dismissal. They have been scrambling for a reason since day 1. Remember, he has not been found guilty of anything.

I am like a dog with a bone because the truth has been concealed. There is good reason for that; the complainant must be protected. When it is revealed, probably not before the trial, there will be a rapid intake of breath from all of us when it all makes sense.

[Thinline]

Fact is there's two rather technical legal arguments in play. Both sides think they are right enough to salvage some coin. That's how law works, no matter the jurisdiction.

Either way we'll end up giving some money to an undeserving turd - the price of a silly kneejerk recruitment error.

And for what it's worth the 'Grievance Tribunal' - and essentially that's what we are talking about here - is not a court, will never be a court and the fact that it says that it has some sort of power is akin to me suggesting I have the right to ban players for chewing gum.

But because it's footy, and because nothing sells Herald Suns and Ages like conflict in footy, Joe Public gets fed this line about St K not taking part in justice which in turn reads 'St K is hiding something' (GO, IMO you fall for this hook line and sinker).

As for taking part, well why the f**k should it, to be frank?

To keep some honorary lawyers aglow with self-importance? To pay Rush QC's membership fees at the Australia Club for the next five years?

Hindsight dictates Lovett isn't/wasn't fit for St K. We should pay a price for foolishly thinking otherwise. But that price should be a pittance.

Give Lovett his legal costs to date and $100k to subsidise the next year or so of his life while he refelcts on what could have been had he turned up to training on time, stayed off the piss, and kept himself away from the controversial situations he must have known would land him in the poop.

Otherwise lets just talk football for christs sake. Lovett Schmovett. About as relevant as Mark Latham.

And to end my rant - good on the club for acting swiftly and having the good grace to water down questions about where it stands on the matter. The way Humphery Smith and his firm run to media and soap box it every time the whole sordid c**k up hocks up a fur ball is disgustingly immature, insincere, cynical, and quite frankly repulsive.

[oneteam]

The way Humphery Smith and his firm run to media and soap box it every time the whole sordid c**k up hocks up a fur ball is disgustingly immature, insincere, cynical, and quite frankly repulsive.

Exactly. This guy seems to love the spotlight. looks like he has pumped up lovetts expectations , charged huge fees,

but now the club is not running to write a fat cheque to his firm and Lovett, he runs to the papers.

If his case is so strong , and the clubs lawyers are wrong, then just leave it in the tribunal, run your case, and stop trying to run the case in the papers.